Venezuela vs Netherlands

[Jecito]

Do you really believe the same dutch army that ran away from Bosnian militia leading to 8000 refugee deaths will be able to protect Islands thousands of miles away from a Venezuela armed with SU-30's, Kilo/Amur subs, Tor-m1, T-90 tanks and whatever else Chavez decides to spend his oil money on.

As for US support, depends on who is in office, but I doubt that Obama would do much to support European Colonialism in the carribean. The days of empire are long gone..what the netherlands gains from having a few islands to plant a flag on in the carribean is beyond me, they should have been handed over to Suriname when it was given independence.

If Chavez decides to invade the Islands he would also threaten to cut off US oil, he probably would have the at least diplomatic backing of China, Russia, Iran, South America, and most of Africa with which he has excellent relations. This isn't Kuwait, this isn't even Cold War 82' Falklands. In most colonial conflicts, ie. West Papua the dutch have run away instead of fighting.

 

[ASFC]

A precedant has been set. The US supported the UK during the Falklands crisis, even though the Falkland Islanders had not had a chance to vote on their future (although they made it pretty clear they wanted to remain with the UK).

With Aruba and the Antillies, the population has voted on their future, and in various ways want to remain with the Netherlands (i'm not sure of the details but I understand the Islands are becoming a state within the Kingdom of the Netherlands). Why would the US not support the Democratic choice of the Islands to stay with Holland?

I can't see why the US wouldn't want to help Holland-hell this time there is even a chance to teach Chavez a lesson and put him in his place.

I just don't see Chavez using the military to invade these Islands-why give the US an excuse to attack you?

 

[Eggy]

Venezuela's military is in a very very poor state, the majority of their naval forces are not operational and taking the islands by paradrops is really hard because of the small size of them. There is always one ship present and several hundred marines, of course a suv is in the region frequently as well. Chavez will have enough problems taking the Islands let alone occupy them.

But we all know Chavez is all bark and no bite, just like the rest of is buddies.

Do you really believe the same dutch army that ran away from Bosnian militia leading to 8000 refugee deaths will be able to protect Islands thousands of miles away from a Venezuela armed with SU-30's, Kilo/Amur subs, Tor-m1, T-90 tanks and whatever else Chavez decides to spend his oil money on.

As for US support, depends on who is in office, but I doubt that Obama would do much to support European Colonialism in the carribean. The days of empire are long gone..what the netherlands gains from having a few islands to plant a flag on in the carribean is beyond me, they should have been handed over to Suriname when it was given independence.

If Chavez decides to invade the Islands he would also threaten to cut off US oil, he probably would have the at least diplomatic backing of China, Russia, Iran, South America, and most of Africa with which he has excellent relations. This isn't Kuwait, this isn't even Cold War 82' Falklands. In most colonial conflicts, ie. West Papua the dutch have run away instead of fighting.

You're such an idiot I don't even know where to start. Why don't you start by reading up on some of the conflicts you mentioned, maybe you stop looking like a fool.

 

[Beatmaster]

Do you really believe the same dutch army that ran away from Bosnian militia leading to 8000 refugee deaths will be able to protect Islands thousands of miles away from a Venezuela armed with SU-30's, Kilo/Amur subs, Tor-m1, T-90 tanks and whatever else Chavez decides to spend his oil money on.

As for US support, depends on who is in office, but I doubt that Obama would do much to support European Colonialism in the carribean. The days of empire are long gone..what the netherlands gains from having a few islands to plant a flag on in the carribean is beyond me, they should have been handed over to Suriname when it was given independence.

If Chavez decides to invade the Islands he would also threaten to cut off US oil, he probably would have the at least diplomatic backing of China, Russia, Iran, South America, and most of Africa with which he has excellent relations. This isn't Kuwait, this isn't even Cold War 82' Falklands. In most colonial conflicts, ie. West Papua the dutch have run away instead of fighting.

Damn you are so full of shit. They did not run away if you do not know the reall story behind it please read the histroy books.:lul

@ Other guys thanks for the reply

 

[swerve]

I'm not so optimistic about a larger numbers of troops lifted. They'd need a good number of vehicles and supplies with them. In case they'd pull such a stunt the sea around Venezuela would become poisonous quite fast, wouldn't bet to get anything heavy accross after a few days, and wouldn't bet on having any assets to get it accross .....

Coming back to this revived thread, noticed this post.

Simple answer - STUFT. Any ship can carry troops, any ro-ro can carry vehicles, any freighter can carry supplies - into a port. Venezuela has a modest merchant fleet, but much of it is owned by a state shipping firm, so could quickly & easily be called up. Arrange for appropriate ships to be in Venezuelan ports at the right time, scheduled for normal civilian cargoes, then requisition them. Cargoes (troops & their heavy gear) could be waiting to board as soon as the balloon goes up. Supplies could be pre-loaded (pretending to be something else), maybe even at sea, & divert when given the signal. The landing ships carry a first wave, with enough gear to seize a harbour. The civilian shipping offloads as soon as the port is secure enough. Shuttle back & forth as long as possible. Land more troops by air when an airport is seized.

If this was to remain a Venezuala-Netherlands conflict, the Netherlands would be unable to raise a sufficient force to retake the islands, Dutch warships would have difficulty operating close to the Venezuelan coast, Dutch submarines would be unable to mount a sustained campaign. F-16s out of Sint Maarten (good civilian airport there - assume rapid reinforcement by air) could mount raids, but I think it's too far away to establish superiority in the air over ABC. Too few ships, too few subs, too few aircraft - especially tankers. Venezuela keeps the islands, though at considerable cost. The geographical advantage of proximity is too great.

Despite the above, I don't believe a Venezuelan invasion of ABC is ever likely to be attempted, or sustainable if ever successfully mounted. But that's because I don't think it would be a purely Venezuela-Netherlands war. I would expect the USA, UK & France to render assistance, even though there is no NATO obligation.

 

[kato]

If this was to remain a Venezuala-Netherlands conflict

Except it wouldn't of course. While it's not a WEU case as its outside Europe (or NATO case as it's below the Tropic of Cancer), it's relatively assured that under ESDP the EU and WEU would call to action - especially as there is official full EU territory directly (!) bordering the Netherlands Antilles (namely Saint Martin, whose southern part as Sint Maarten is officially part of the Netherlands Antilles territory). France alone has around 10,000 soldiers forward-deployed in the region.

The Netherlands have also been pushing for the Netherlands Antilles to become EU OMR territories btw, like Guadeloupe or French Guiana. Currently, they are a OCT, and hence not part of EU territory.

 

[swerve]

Except it wouldn't of course.

Of course, and I did say that . . .

... I don't think it would be a purely Venezuela-Netherlands war. I would expect the USA, UK & France to render assistance....

 

[Jecito]

This is not a discussion about the quality of dutch troops. But nobody will forget the dutch in Srebrenica , former yugoslavia very quickly. Dutch commanders surrendering without a shot being fired, then drinking beer with bosnian militia. This even led to the fall of a dutch government, maybe you should read up about it. Maybe this photo will refresh your memory.

The dutch are a bunch of appeasers. Just look at how many caveats they put on their troops in Afghanistan, even worse then the Germans.

Apart from this the dutch only have 7 frigates, and four submarines, 2 LPD's not much of a navy. Everyone is making a comparison with the Royal Navy/British falklands, yet the Royal Navy was alot stronger then the Dutch Navy is now. And Venezuela is alot stronger then Argentina was, as well as being alot closer to Curacao then Argentina was to the Falklands.

Any one who thought that Chavez was all bark and no bite, should probably read some history about Hitler, nobody took him seriously either "Peace in our time' as Chamberlain said. How you can't take seriously the deployment of Russian Tu-160, Russian Navy to Venezuela, his frequent visits to China, Iran to see that Chavez is going on the warpath, although he doesn't wear the uniform or use the title, remember that he was Colonel Hugo Chavez, Paratrooper when he led the military coup in 1998. This man when the economy falls to S*** will not go down without fighting AKA Argentina falklands to distract the populace from his collapsed country. Venezuela has a claim on the Netherlands Antilles since Independence.

 

[kato]

Venezuela has a claim on the Netherlands Antilles since Independence.

You mean like Colombia has a claim to half of South America including of course Venezuela?

Curacao was founded by the Dutch in 1634. That takes clear precedence over the Venezuelan independance in 1830 from Greater Colombia. Considering both Carib and Arawak are near-extinct in both the Lesser Antilles and Venezuela, not even some sort of historical ethnic conjecture exists. But hey, Guyana could likely lay a claim to both on that basis.

 

[Beatmaster]

@ Jecito nobody will forget Srebrenica and what happend there its a very black page of the dutch histroy, its true that they messed up there but it would not be fair to give all the blame to the dutch soldiers there because they where actually not allowed to use there weapons due to nato rules at the time.
I know they are willing to fight and the would have if they did get the green light.
According to my cousin how has served there i can tell you this mutch:
If you wanna blame people for it please blame the ministers and staff chiefs of nato and not the soldiers and field commanders.
My cousin is still crying his eyes out because they only could look how those people got killed.
If he could turn back time than the hole Srebrenica story would be alot differend.

And about afganistan i can tell you this the dutch have a small force there but the are fighting hard and doing a great job there.
And if you do not know whats happening there please consult a US soldier that served there he will tell you that his six got many times saved by dutch airsupport and apaches.
The troops there are really doing a great job like the most of nations that have troops there.

Sinds Srebrenica the dutch army it self is almost rebuild from top to bottom just to make sure they are able to get the job done.
So if you see the past events i think that the dutch are doing just fine.

But this is way off topic its just for your information


For the ABC islands it will be a hole other story because its dutch ground and correct me if iam wrong but to my knowlegd there is written in the very foundations of the EU and Nato pack that if a member comes under attack they all have to jump in.
The ABC are not close to the EU its acctually a complete differend continent but it is still dutch ground so this means its EU ground.

And yes the dutch have a pretty small navy but at least its high tech and it is wel trained and in good shape.
The LCF frigates are nasty bitches when they are starting to fire at you.
And the 4 submarines are perhaps not able to stop chaves but the are very stealth and deadly when they are come for you
This link will tell the story about the Dutch LCF frigates (link)

So chaves will have a very hard time because these vessels will be more than capable to make him suffer.

About the Dutch Subs you will find all you need on this page (Link)

Its true that the dutch have not a great navy but chaves is not having these kind of hightech weapons.

So his advantage due his proximity and size of his army will almost be completely undone due the quality of these dutch ships.

But its true that the dutch will have a hard time to getting chaves out.
Or they acctually get the job done? only time will tell but i do believe that they will put up a hell of a fight and that they are very capable.
Considering the size of the dutch army i have to say its small but it is well trained and has a highlevel of proffesionalisme so that must count for something right?

Anyway i found myself way off topic by defending the dutch in this topic, and this is not what i did have in mind when i start replying to this topic.
Anyway the bottom line is still chaves will have a solid shot at the ABC islands, but in the end he will go down.
And yeah the few dutch troops and planes there are not up to the task to defend them selfs against chaves when he appears at the radar.
But due the geografic structure of the ABC islands he will have a hardtime and the cost will be high to succesfully invade the ABC.

So as the other user said on this forum France, The UK and The USA also have alot of forces near the ABC so Chaves has to be a Idiot if he pulls of this stunt because then he is signing his death warrant.

But indeed i must say that the dutch without help would have a very nasty time to kick Chaves out and the even might not be able to the task but the will make Chaves regret his attack that i do believe because the cost of this war will be very very high for Chaves and unsustainable in the long run so in that context the Dutch have already won this future war.

 

[swerve]

For the ABC islands it will be a hole other story because its dutch ground and correct me if iam wrong but to my knowlegd there is written in the very foundations of the EU and Nato pack that if a member comes under attack they all have to jump in.
The ABC are not close to the EU its acctually a complete differend continent but it is still dutch ground so this means its EU ground..

Neither of these claims is true.

Firstly, the NATO treaty only applies to attacks on the territory, shipping or aircraft of NATO members in a specified area. The Netherlands Antilles are outside that area. They are therefore in exactly the same situation as the Falklands in 1982, or East Timor in the 1970s. The NATO treaty does not apply.

The NATO treaty - official text.

Secondly, the Netherlands Antilles are not part of the EU. Overseas territories of EU countries are not necessarily part of the EU. Greenland & the Faeroes, for example, are not parts of the EU (their own choice), but remain Danish territories. The territorial definition of the EU is extremely complicated, including numerous degrees of special status granted over many centuries, & even within the mainland European territories of member states, there are oddities, such as Livigno being outside any customs area, & therefore exempt from customs duties, excise, & VAT. Blame the Holy Roman Empire - but it's been confirmed by everyone since, including Napoleon, Austria-Hungary, Italy (kingdom & republic) & the EU.

Do not take the status of any overseas territory of any EU member for granted.

Wikipedia list of EU special & associated non-EU territories

Thirdly, there are no military provisions in the original EU treaties.

 

[kato]

Thirdly, there are no military provisions in the original EU treaties.

The Netherlands are a founding member of the WEU.

"If any of the High Contracting Parties should be the object of an armed attack in Europe, the other High Contracting Parties will, in accordance with the provisions of Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, afford the Party so attacked all the military and other aid and assistance in their power."​

Brussels Treaty, as active since 1948 between the Netherlands, France, Belgium, Luxembourg and the UK, with Germany and Italy acceding in the Modified Brussels Treaty of 1954, Portugal and Spain in 1990 and Greece in 1995 (and any further admission blocked since 2002).

Per se, this treaty predates both NATO and all EU-precursor-related treaties.

The WEU system has since been semi-integrated into the EU under ESDP policy, hence the EU definitely having a military provision at least for its core members.

 

[kato]

Also, EU territory isn't all that complicated really, when you break it down.

The EU splits into:

• Full Members, European territory (EU territory)
• OMT / "Outermost Territories" and European Islands as well as enclaves within other nations with special rules regarding EU Duties and Taxation (EU territory)
  • Azores and Madeira (Portuguese) [note: only one with full EU status out of OMT]
  • Canary Islands (Spanish)
  • French Guyana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Reunion (French)
  • Aland Islands (Swedish)
  • Channel Islands, Isle of Man (British)
  • Heligoland (German)
  • Livigno and Campino d'Italia (Italian, in Switzerland)
  • Büsingen (German, in Switzerland)
  • Ceuta and Melilla (Spanish, in Morocco)
  • Gibraltar (British, in Spain)
• special territory (Cyprus and all various sovereignties on the island)
• OCT / "Overseas Countries and Territories", ie colonies (not EU territory)
  • Faroe Islands and Greenland
  • All British overseas territories
  • Mayotte, St. Pierre et Miquelon, French Polynesia, Wallis et Futuna, FSAL
  • Netherlands Antilles and Aruba
• interim OCT status (St. Barthelemy and St. Martin)

When you simplify it a bit, the EU breaks down into: the Full Members ; EU territory with special rules due to their territorial position (overseas, autonomous islands, enclaves) ; territory that belongs to a EU member state but is not part of the EU itself. With the choice between the second and third option supposed to be taken by the local population.

 

[regstrup]

@ Jecito nobody will forget Srebrenica and what happend there its a very black page of the dutch histroy, its true that they messed up there but it would not be fair to give all the blame to the dutch soldiers there because they where actually not allowed to use there weapons due to nato rules at the time.

According to my cousin how has served there i can tell you this mutch:
If you wanna blame people for it please blame the ministers and staff chiefs of nato and not the soldiers and field commanders.

Even though this is off-topic, I will have to stand up for NATO, as the dutch soldiers were serving under the blue helmet of UNPROFOR.

So any military decisions was not taken by NATO but by the political bureaucrats from the UNITED NATIONS. This is why most members of NATO is no longer willing to put soldiers under the command of UN.

So Jecito, it is not fair to blame the dutch soldiers in Srebrenica. Blame the UN !

The dutch soldiers is fighting an honourable battle in Helman, while other countries keep their soldiers in the safer areas of Afghanistan.

 

[kato]

So any military decisions was not taken by NATO but by the political bureaucrats from the UNITED NATIONS. This is why most members of NATO is no longer willing to put soldiers under the command of UN.

BS. The United Nations has never had its own independant command staff. UNPROFOR HQ was composed of UNPROFOR contributor militaries. In the case of Srebrenica, French General Janvier had command of both UN and NATO forces in the area.
In fact, at the time NATO military and political staff, led by the USA, was actively conspiring in taking away the dual-key decision power from Boutros-Ghali, Akashi and Van Kappen, in order to be able to unilaterally, pre-emptively bomb Bosnian Serb positions. It could be argued that such strife from certain NATO members was actively preventing any decisive action from being taken in the time after the Pale bombardments.

Also, most NATO members - except, as always, the USA - do have considerable forces within UN taskforces. As in right now.

 

[Beatmaster]

Neither of these claims is true.

Firstly, the NATO treaty only applies to attacks on the territory, shipping or aircraft of NATO members in a specified area. The Netherlands Antilles are outside that area. They are therefore in exactly the same situation as the Falklands in 1982, or East Timor in the 1970s. The NATO treaty does not apply.

The NATO treaty - official text.

Secondly, the Netherlands Antilles are not part of the EU. Overseas territories of EU countries are not necessarily part of the EU. Greenland & the Faeroes, for example, are not parts of the EU (their own choice), but remain Danish territories. The territorial definition of the EU is extremely complicated, including numerous degrees of special status granted over many centuries, & even within the mainland European territories of member states, there are oddities, such as Livigno being outside any customs area, & therefore exempt from customs duties, excise, & VAT. Blame the Holy Roman Empire - but it's been confirmed by everyone since, including Napoleon, Austria-Hungary, Italy (kingdom & republic) & the EU.

Do not take the status of any overseas territory of any EU member for granted.

Wikipedia list of EU special & associated non-EU territories

Thirdly, there are no military provisions in the original EU treaties.

O thanks for the correction i did not know this.
But the hole Nato, EU, UN, Isaf, Sfor story is something i do not understand its way to complicated.
So if there is a treaty, or no treaty about colonial protection i would not know about it.
But anyway thx

.............................................................................................
@Kato

You have posted this:

EU territory isn't all that complicated really, when you break it down.

The EU splits into:
Full Members, European territory (EU territory)
OMT / "Outermost Territories" and European Islands as well as enclaves within other nations with special rules regarding EU Duties and Taxation (EU territory)
Azores and Madeira (Portuguese) [note: only one with full EU status out of OMT]
Canary Islands (Spanish)
French Guyana, Guadeloupe, Martinique and Reunion (French)
Aland Islands (Swedish)
Channel Islands, Isle of Man (British)
Heligoland (German)
Livigno and Campino d'Italia (Italian, in Switzerland)
Büsingen (German, in Switzerland)
Ceuta and Melilla (Spanish, in Morocco)
Gibraltar (British, in Spain)
special territory (Cyprus and all various sovereignties on the island)
OCT / "Overseas Countries and Territories", ie colonies (not EU territory)
Faroe Islands and Greenland
All British overseas territories
Mayotte, St. Pierre et Miquelon, French Polynesia, Wallis et Futuna, FSAL
Netherlands Antilles and Aruba
interim OCT status (St. Barthelemy and St. Martin)

When you simplify it a bit, the EU breaks down into: the Full Members ; EU territory with special rules due to their territorial position (overseas, autonomous islands, enclaves) ; territory that belongs to a EU member state but is not part of the EU itself. With the choice between the second and third option supposed to be taken by the local population.
1 Hour Ago 11:36 AM
kato Quote:
Originally Posted by swerve
Thirdly, there are no military provisions in the original EU treaties.

The Netherlands are a founding member of the WEU.

"If any of the High Contracting Parties should be the object of an armed attack in Europe, the other High Contracting Parties will, in accordance with the provisions of Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, afford the Party so attacked all the military and other aid and assistance in their power."
Brussels Treaty, as active since 1948 between the Netherlands, France, Belgium, Luxembourg and the UK, with Germany and Italy acceding in the Modified Brussels Treaty of 1954, Portugal and Spain in 1990 and Greece in 1995 (and any further admission blocked since 2002).

Per se, this treaty predates both NATO and all EU-precursor-related treaties.

The WEU system has since been semi-integrated into the EU under ESDP policy, hence the EU definitely having a military provision at least for its core members.
..........................................................................................

Kato i like to ask you about this post some further details because this is way out of my league.

What kind of treaty's do the netherlands have when it comes to protecting colonial property?

And what is you post actually saying?
Because Swerve just wrote that i was wrong about the EU/Nato protection to the ABC islands because they are not EU/Nato controlled regions.
But correct me if iam wrong but when i read your post ist acctually saying than on one hand the ABC do not get support because they are not EU but on the other hand they will get the hole nine yards.

So its very confusing can you explain me something about this mistery?
....................................................................................

@ Regstrup

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beatmaster
@ Jecito nobody will forget Srebrenica and what happend there its a very black page of the dutch histroy, its true that they messed up there but it would not be fair to give all the blame to the dutch soldiers there because they where actually not allowed to use there weapons due to nato rules at the time.

According to my cousin how has served there i can tell you this mutch:
If you wanna blame people for it please blame the ministers and staff chiefs of nato and not the soldiers and field commanders.

..................................................................

In my post i wrote Nato but i do mean UN thanx for the correction.

....................................................................
PS this is way offtopic but just a quistion?
The UN and Nato are ruled by almost the same people right?
They are suppost to be 2 differend systems but when i use google to check it out it seems they are fishing in the same pool with the same rod so, its very difficult to see them as different party's.

Sorry for my massa posts but its better than 20 short posts.

Cheers

 

[kato]

What kind of treaty's do the netherlands have when it comes to protecting colonial property?

None at all.

The WEU treaty only provides for defense of European territory.
However, in my opinion, since the WEU was all but absorbed into EU ESDP, it wouldn't be all that unlikely to (in practice) extent such protection to at least OMT territories, as they are official EU territory. Read: If someone attacks say French Guyana, the whole EU would likely get involved.
Now, the Netherlands Antilles however are not OMT territory at the moment, but OTC. The Netherlands could, for example, try switching these to the same OMT status as e.g. Guadeloupe has, however that would likely need a referendum on the islands.

In short:
- The Netherlands Antilles are not part of the official EU territory
- The Netherlands Antilles are, to some extent, "associated" with the EU however
- The Netherlands Antilles are not protected by any mutual defense treaties
- A EU-wide response would still be likely in case of an attack

The UN and Nato are ruled by almost the same people right?

Umm, no? No one rules NATO anyway, all NATO decisions have to be agreed on by all members. And the UN is ruled by the permanent members of the Security Council really (China, France, Russia, UK, USA), as well as ten other, non-permanent council seats rotating between the other 200 members of the UN.

 

[swerve]

The Netherlands are a founding member of the WEU.

"If any of the High Contracting Parties should be the object of an armed attack in Europe, the other High Contracting Parties will, in accordance with the provisions of Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, afford the Party so attacked all the military and other aid and assistance in their power."​

Brussels Treaty, as active since 1948 between the Netherlands, France, Belgium, Luxembourg and the UK, with Germany and Italy acceding in the Modified Brussels Treaty of 1954, Portugal and Spain in 1990 and Greece in 1995 (and any further admission blocked since 2002).

Per se, this treaty predates both NATO and all EU-precursor-related treaties.

The WEU system has since been semi-integrated into the EU under ESDP policy, hence the EU definitely having a military provision at least for its core members.

All true, but not all relevant to what was claimed.

Not all original WEU members joined the EEC (as it originally was) when it was founded, & although the hold-out (the UK) later joined, Ireland & Denmark (not WEU signatories) joined at the same time, preserving the disconnection between WEU & EEC(EU) membership. That has remained, even surviving the assumption of the WEUs crisis management role by the EU. The WEU still formally exists (but with only a skeleton staff), independently of the EU. It has 10 members (all EU & NATO), 6 associate members (all now NATO, 3 non-EU), 5 observers (all EU, 1 NATO), & 7 associate partners (all now NATO & EU).

The EUs military provisions do not include an explicit commitment to mutual self-defence, & the binding commitment which the 10 full WEU members have is from the 1949 Brussels Treaty (as modified), not from their EU membership. In theory, the Netherlands, for example, could leave both the EU & NATO - and our two countries would still be committed to defend it. But if it stayed in the EU, & formally quit NATO & the WEU, we'd no longer be required to defend it. I think we would, though. It's a declared policy. Note the difference: a policy, not a binding obligation.

BTW, one long-standing EU member country has inserted a clause into its constitution (2002) opting out of EU common defence arrangements. Rather untidy, unfortunately.

In short:
- The Netherlands Antilles are not part of the official EU territory
- The Netherlands Antilles are, to some extent, "associated" with the EU

however
- The Netherlands Antilles are not protected by any mutual defense treaties
- A EU-wide response would still be likely in case of an attack

This I like. A very good, succinct, & precise summation.

 

[Beatmaster]

@Kato and Swerve

Thanks for the great reply´s.
Now its all come clear to me.

So i was wondering as Swerve said: That defending a country like the Netherlands specific the ABC island is just a case of willing to defend it and not an mutual obligation right?

But what i did found on the internet is this: North Atlantic Treaty

According to this website you are both wrong, because it is written that and i quote (ps its in dutch so i used a online translator so there will be some spelling errors:

North Atlantic Treaty
Opening for signature 4-4-1949; Washington
Signature for Kingdom of the Netherlands 4-4-1949

- Kingdom of the Netherlands party
for the Netherlands 12-8-1949
for Netherlands Antilles
for Aruba

- Coming into force for Kingdom of the Netherlands
for the Netherlands 24-8-1949
for Netherlands Antilles
for Aruba

Text announced Stb. 1949, 355
Dutch translation Stb. 1949, 355
Last official publication Trb. 1999, 121
Defence publication MP 11-30/120
Kamerstukken II
Kamerstukken I
Approval states general
(Realm) law Stb. 1949, 355
uitvoeringswet /regelgeving


Article 5
The parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of her in Europe or Noord-Amerika as an attack against her all will be considered ; they agree consequently that, if such an armed attack takes place everyone of her the thus attacked party or parties will assist, in the exercise from the right to individual or collective self-defence recognised in Article 51 of the United Nations charter, by terstond, individually and in cooperation with the other parties, action in the manner, which she judges necessary - power armed including the use of - to repair and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Each armed attack of serves nature and all consequently taken measures must be notified terstond of the Security Council. These measures will be raised, as soon as the Security Council will have taken the necessary measures, to repair and maintain international peace and security.

So the UN, NATO and the USA and all his members must do everything to protect each other this is also for colonial properties worldwide.

Because according to this treaty its not relevant what geografic location the dutch territory is located because the Netherlands Antilles are offical dutch territory.
So infact it will not matter or Chaves invade the Capital Amsterdam or on of the Netherlands Antilles it is both dutch territory.
And as i said before this treaty shows clearly that in case of an attack the UN, NATO and perhaps even the EU must defend it at all times.

@Kato

You said in your previous posts that the ABC islands will not be defended due a obligation of the EU and NATO correct?
You also said that the might still wanna defend them but that is just a act of good will and partnership right?

This website link is showing all the members of NATO and Members that have agreed to this treaty so this means if Chaves is going to be a madman and invade the ABC islands than these country's will declare war at him to defend the Dutch ABC islands or known as the Netherlands Antilles according to the treaty called : North Atlantic Treaty last updated at April 2008

Belgium
Canada
Denmark
France
Iceland
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Norway
Portugal
United Kingdom
United States

Later the following nations joined:

Greece (1952)
Turkey (1952)
West Germany (1955)
Spain (1982)
Czech Republic (1999)
Hungary (1999)
Poland (1999)
Bulgaria (2004)
Estonia (2004)
Latvia (2004)
Lithuania (2004)
Romania (2004)
Slovakia (2004)
Slovenia (2004)

So perhaps iam really stupid and misunderstand the hole concept but it is written clearly so i maintain that you are probably both right but if you both are right than can you both explain to me why this treaty is still active?
Because its mega clear that Chaves will have lots of problems according to this treaty.

I do not know about france and the UK because they do have alot of colonial territory's worldwide but as you both already explained for example the Flaklands did not have the protection made by this North Atlantic Treaty.
Perhaps the Netherlands got some special treatment or special set of rules because it was one of the founders of NATO, UN and EU.

So here iam reading your post and reading this treaty this is really confusing.
Can you guys check this out and explain this?

 

[kato]

Read Article 6 of the NATO treaty. It defines the area affected by the mutual defense clause in Article 5. The Netherlands Antilles are south of the Tropic of Cancer referred to in Article 6.